SCOTUS Ruling on Corporate Political Spending Is a Business Decision

[struggle4progress]

Walter Shapiro

... The sweeping decision by the Court's five-member conservative majority was immediately hailed by Republicans (aside from John McCain, who coauthored the 2002 law that was partially overturned) as an uplifting triumph for the First Amendment. In reality (and I know this will upset those who still believe in the Tooth Fairy), the GOP statements are mostly motivated by self-interest on the assumption that corporations will mostly want to back anti-tax and anti-government-regulation Republicans. Democratic dismay (Barack Obama warned of "a new stampede of special-interest money in our politics") also has its dollars-and-cents component as Obama raised five times more than McCain in 2008 from small (under $200) donors.

Thursday's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission may prove to be the most significant political event (sorry about that Sen. Brown) since the 2008 election. Its potential implications are so vast that it is misleading to merely view the Citizens United case through a narrow partisan prism. Michael Waldman, a former Bill Clinton speechwriter who is now the executive director of the Brennan Center, a non-partisan public policy institute which specializes in political reform, said, "Exxon Mobil's profits in 2008 were $45 billion. At 9:00 Thursday morning, Exxon's manager could not spend any of that money to back candidates. And at noon Thursday, after the Supreme Court ruled, they could. There is nothing to prevent them from spending Mike Bloomberg-level money in every congressional district in the country" ...

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/01/22/the-supreme-court-s-ruling-on-corporate-campaign-spending-it-s/

[AlinPA]

1. Their long-term debt can easily be increased (selling bonds) and become a good investment.

Sell the bonds, and use the money to finance the senate or house. Just the cost of doing business. Or just spend money on republicans and write it off as an expense item like depreciation.

[Gman2]

2. This will be remedied, until then, it is a rage draw. We needed one.

[enough]

3. Not as easily remedied as we like to think. See this from Yale law prof Heather K. Gerken

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/01/initial-take-on-citizens-united.html

snip>

In my view, the real significance of the case lies in what the Court said Congress can do going forward. The Court severely limited both the arguments and the types of evidence Congress can invoke when it regulates in the future. In doing so, it overruled other precedent without saying so. Austin, it seems to me, was a goner anyway. The real hope for future campaign-finance reform turned not on Austin¸ but on what constitutes corruption and what evidence Congress can gather to show it exists. The Court has now cut back substantially on both fronts. While that part of the opinion won’t get nearly as much press, it's the part of the opinion that will matter most in the future.